PIL/393/2012 of Mr. Syed Khaleelullah Vs State of A.P., on 31 December 2012

Conclusion

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEAND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.393 OF 2012

Dt: 31-12-2012.

Between:

MR.SYED KHALEELULLAH .. PETITIONER

AND

STATE OF A.P.REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYSECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,HYDERABADAND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.393 OF 2012

ORDER: (Per THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner under the Public Interestjurisdiction praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on thepart of the respondents 1 to 9 in permitting the 10[th] respondent to undertakeillegal construction activities to build Mahadev Mandir within the premises ofthe 11[th]respondent bearing Municipal No.21-1-216/1, Charminar,Hyderabad, within the prohibited radius of Charminar monument abutting theoffice of Assistant Commissioner of Police and Charminar Police Station asillegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, mala fide and consequently direct therespondents to remove the structures raised therein in the interest of justice.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

It appears in this matter counter affidavit has been filed by the 10[th]respondent-Mahadev Mandir Temple Committee. In fact, it has beenspecifically stated and also submitted on behalf of the said respondent thatthe said respondent does not dispute the fact that Charminar is a greatmonument. It is also not disputed by them that Charminar has been notifiedas an ancient monument. In these circumstances, they have further admittedin the counter affidavit that with a view to provide more facilities and toremove difficulties of devotees they have commenced repairs andappropriate renovation works not being aware of the fact that the same requires prior permission from the competent authority under Section 20 C ofThe Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958(for short ‘the Act’). It is further submitted that the said works did not increasethe height and width of the existing structure. It is further stated that after theinterim order passed by this Court and communicated to them they havestopped the works and applied before the Municipal authorities and alsounder the said Act. Further, the 10[th] respondent has given an undertakingbefore us as follows:

“This respondent undertakes not to proceed with any further renovationand repair work unless competent authority accords permission to do so. Thisrespondent respectfully submits that there is no intention on its part to violatethe law and will abide by any directions which may be issued by this Hon’bleCourt. It is respectfully submitted that contents of para 7 and 8 being part ofthe record, same need not be specifically denied.”

In view of the above, we intend to dispose of this matter after keeping iton record that whatever steps would be taken by the 10[th] respondent shall bekeeping in view the undertaking given by them before us. It is desirable thatthe 10[th] respondent should not commence any repair/renovation workswithout the authority of law and without having the permission, which isrequired to be taken from the competent authority. The respondents-authorities to whom the 10[th] respondent has made the applications on thesubject matter in question, shall consider the same in accordance with theprovisions of law.

Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is disposed of on the aboveterms. No costs.

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HCJ )

TNB

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )